Case law

Crooks v. Maynard

718 F. Supp. 1460 · District Court, D. Idaho · Aug 4, 1989

This court has found no published decision which clearly defines the scope of qualified judicial immunity. This circuit has defined qualified immunity for jury commissioners and directors of jury services. … Under this qualified immunity, they were immune so long as their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable *1465 person would have known.” Id.

Housley v. Holquist

879 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2011

The Housleys bear the burden of proving the violation of a constitutional right, but the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they prove that the right was not clearly established. See Wilson v. … Finally, the Court will not revisit the qualified immunity issue at trial.

Estate of Escobedo v. Bender

600 F.3d 770 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 5, 2010

Clearly Established The Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established on July 19, 2005, to place them on notice that the use of tear gas and flash bang devices in … established right and therefore the Defendants are not protected by qualified immunity. 2.

Jeffers v. Gomez

267 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2001

The availability of qualified immunity in such a case naturally turns on whether it was "clearly established law" that Motive Y was impermissible. … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity "requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established?

Derek Westwater v. Kevin Church

60 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 23, 2023

Alternatively, the court ruled that Church was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal § 1983 claim because any constitutional violation was not clearly established. Westwater appeals. … In these circumstances, summary judgment should not be granted on either qualified immunity issue, whether the force used was reasonable and, if not, whether the violation was clearly established.

Vakilian v. Shaw

335 F.3d 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 2003

Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within the scope of their official duties from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would … now ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of Shaw’s action.

Alhadji Bayon v. Marshall Berkebile

29 F.4th 850 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2022

The officers moved for summary judgment, asserting that their use of force was justified and that, in any event, they were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … The officers assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because “no clearly established law put them on notice that their con- 16 duct would violate Bayon’s rights.”

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 15, 2010

defendants and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Id.

Ahmad v. Furlong

435 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 18, 2006

If the plaintiff establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, he must then demonstrate that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” Id. … To be sure, Appellants’ motion did not clearly raise qualified immunity with respect to the RLUIPA claim.

Steven J. KELLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert G. BORG, Defendant-Appellant

60 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 28, 1995

Despite this erroneous statement in his order, however, the magistrate judge ultimately conducted the proper inquiry for a qualified immunity examination: He ruled that the right allegedly violated was clearly established … Appellants argue that they should have been granted qualified immunity because the second, “clearly established,” prong of the test has not been met.

Dunn v. Castro

621 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 14, 2010

On review of a denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether governing law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Mabe v. … [3] A court, when deciding whether there has been a viola- tion of a “clearly established right” for qualified immunity, must strike the proper balance in defining that right. In Ander- son v.

Brown v. Truelove

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 2020

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts examine (1) whether “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) whether “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the

McMillian v. Johnson

88 F.3d 1554 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1996

The issue for qualified immunity purposes, however, is not whether the due process right not to be punished before conviction was clearly established. … Clearly Established Law Prohibited Police' Suppression of Exculpatory and Impeachment Evidence Tate, Ikner, and Benson are protected by qualified immunity unless their actions violated clearly established law.

Albright v. Rodriguez

51 F.3d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

Defendant contends he was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show he violated clearly established law. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

Hartman v. Middleton

974 P.2d 1007 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 1998

to defeat the defense of qualified immunity. … Where qualified immunity is raised in a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must determine, based upon the allegations of the plaintiff, whether a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable official

Jon Hyde v. City of Willcox

23 F.4th 863 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 6, 2022

To determine whether an officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court asks, in the order it chooses, (i) whether the alleged misconduct violated a constitutional right and (ii) whether the right was clearly established at … Pralgo and Callahan-English violated clearly established law.

Henderson v. Baird

29 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1994

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The magistrate judge went on to deny qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim because the law was clearly established “that substantive due process required that at least some evidence was needed to support

Pooler v. Hempstead Police Department

897 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 14, 2012

that preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. 1. … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

Rippy v. Hattaway

270 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 2, 2001

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity in the face of a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff bears an additional burden of pleading facts that, if taken as true, establish not only the violation of his rights, but also … While the promulgation and enforcement of procedures is a conceivable basis for a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff overcomes a qualified immunity defense only by identifying a particularized, clearly established right that

Hereford v. Warren

536 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 7, 2008

The district court granted ha-beas relief after concluding that the state court’s holding represented an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C … That conclusion, however, misapprehends controlling law for AEDPA purposes; the language found in Minsky is not a Supreme Court holding that reflects clearly established federal law.